Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
AAR held that nominal amounts recovered from employees for transportation arranged through third-party vendors did not constitute a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The arrangement was treated as an employee welfare facility, not an activity in the course or furtherance of the applicant's engineering and IT-related business, and the recovery was only partial cost-sharing with no independent consideration accruing to the applicant. The transport facility was also regarded as an employment-linked perquisite covered by Schedule III, and therefore outside the ambit of supply. As the transaction was not taxable, the question of valuation for GST did not arise.
AAR held that nominal amounts recovered from employees for transportation arranged through third-party vendors did not constitute a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The arrangement was treated as an employee welfare facility, not an activity in the course or furtherance of the applicant's engineering and IT-related business, and the recovery was only partial cost-sharing with no independent consideration accruing to the applicant. The transport facility was also regarded as an employment-linked perquisite covered by Schedule III, and therefore outside the ambit of supply. As the transaction was not taxable, the question of valuation for GST did not arise.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.